Chapter 47 <Do you want to fight this lawsuit>

The famous ancient Greek philosopher and sophist Protagoras once set up a public library to teach people the art of debate.He took in a student who wanted to be a lawyer, named Evatelus.Teachers and students sign a contract: the student pays half of the tuition first, and the other half of the tuition is paid after the student wins the first court case after graduation; if the lawsuit is lost, the half of the tuition is not required to be paid. After graduating, Alvatierrez did not work as a lawyer, nor did he pay half of the tuition fees.The teacher got impatient, so he asked the students for it, but the students insisted on refusing to give it, so the teachers and students had to go to court to solve the problem.The teacher told the students that this lawsuit will not do you any good.Because: if I win, according to the court judgment, you must pay me tuition; if I lose, you win, and according to the contract signed at the beginning, you must also pay me tuition (the contract stipulates, Avatila The first time the lawyer wins the lawsuit, the tuition fee should be paid); or I won the case, or I lost the case; therefore, you must pay me the tuition fee.

Not to be outdone, Avatierus said to the teacher, I think this lawsuit is actually against you.Because: if I win, according to the judgment of the court, of course I will not give you tuition fees; If you lose the lawsuit, you don’t need to pay the other half of the tuition fee); or I win the fight, or I lose the fight; therefore, I don’t have to pay you the tuition fee. This is the famous half-fee lawsuit in the history of logic. Both the teacher's and the student's arguments violate the identity law of formal logic.Because according to the same law, teachers and students must use the same standard when arguing whether they should pay tuition fees.

But in fact, both of them adopted double standards: one is the court's judgment, and the other is the original contract.These two standards have advantages and disadvantages for both sides of the debate. In their arguments, they all chose the standard that is beneficial to them and avoided the standard that is not good for them. When the teacher said to the students that if I win the lawsuit, you should pay me the tuition, the standard used is the court's judgment; when he said that if I lose, you should also pay me the tuition, the standard used is the original contract .Avatilus is just the opposite. When he said to the teacher that if I lose the lawsuit, I will not give you the tuition fee, the standard he used was the original contract; when he said that if I win the lawsuit, I will not give you the tuition fee. The standard used is the judgment of the court.Therefore, the arguments of teachers and students are all sophistry.

If you think about this issue in depth, you will find that there are loopholes in the contract signed at the beginning, because it does not stipulate whether students should pay the other half of the tuition fees if they do not practice law after graduation. This point is taken advantage of by students.In this case, it may be difficult for the judge to decide whether Avatierus should pay the tuition.